Bonamici, Cornilles debate intensifying ad war in congressional race

In their last joint encounter before the Jan. 31 special election, Republican Rob Cornilles and Democrat Suzanne Bonamici argued Tuesday over the increasing blizzard of negative advertising in their race for the 1st Congressional District.

Cornilles accused Bonamici of being a hypocrite because she supports tighter limits on political advertising by independent groups but refuses to speak out against commercials from such committees benefitting her campaign.

Bonamici responded that she can't tell these groups what to do and the important thing is whether voters are getting accurate information.

After the morning show, the Cornilles campaign announced that it is putting a new ad up on the air that has been financed in part by $85,000 from the National Republican Congressional Committee. This is the first major influx of money he has received from a GOP committee and is a sign that the House Republican caucus believes he can at least run strongly in a district that has a significant Democratic registration edge.

"Rob Cornilles has made this into a much more competitive race than anybody thought it would be," said Daniel Scarpinato, a spokesman for the GOP committee.

Meanwhile, a so-called "super PAC" connected to House Democratic leaders -- the House Majority PAC -- confirmed that it will start running ads in the Portland area on Thursday to aid Bonamici's candidacy, according to The Hill newspaper in Washington. The amount of the ad buy was not released but the Cornilles campaign has said it has learned through its own media buyers that it is about $200,000.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is already spending some $1.3 million on TV advertising attacking Cornilles. While the party committee is not technically a super PAC, it can also spend unlimited amounts of money on ads as long as it doesn't coordinate with any candidate.

Bonamici and Cornilles differed on the merits of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which opened the door wider to independent advertising efforts in political campaigns funded by unlimited corporate or personal donations.

Bonamici said she hoped the decision would be overturned, either by a constitutional amendment or by a change in the makeup of the court -- which is one reason why she hopes President Barack Obama is reelected.

Cornilles said he supported the Citizens United decision and added:

"I'm
being just inundated in this election with negative advertising against me to the
tune of approaching $2 million. And I'm not complaining, saying those super PACs
should stay out. I recognize that is their right, according to the law.

"I find it very
hypocritical that Suzanne doesn't support Citizens United, but she sure likes
it when it benefits her campaign by assassinating the character and reputation
of her opponent in an election."

Bonamici responded by saying that "we are forbidden by law to coordinate with any independent expenditure." When asked by host Dave Miller if she would make a general statement against these advertising efforts, she responded:

"What I do believe, Dave, is that it is important
for the people to know the truth about the candidates. So I don't want to get into legal trouble by coordinating by telling them what to do or what not to do...What I do believe is important that people know the truth
about the candidates."

Viveca Novak, a spokeswoman for the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan campaign finance watchdog group, said "there is nothing wrong" with candidates making public statements urging an independent group not to run ads or to change their content.

The problem, Novak said, comes when a candidate and an independent group collaborate in any way on an advertising effort.

The new Cornilles ad criticizes Bonamici's support for tax and fee increases when she was in the Legislature and accuses her of wanting to take $500 billion out of Medicare. That claim has already come under fire from PolitiFact Oregon, which says that Bonamici supported the new health-care law that aims to reduce the growth in spending, not cut benefits.